What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

reply to post by 4hero


It is not precedent that the black boxes were not found. It has happened before.

Now, to destroy a building, even if you were using 20 year in the future tech they are sure to have their hands on, there has to be something to receive the signal, possibly bounce the signal( we know that the fireman had issue so the remote det to me is a moot point now) and then something to continue the reaction. No trace elements? Lets be honest and just agree that this cannot be possible without something bieng found. To this very day, bones and personal items are found. Is the piece out there? Makes for a nice story.

Then, there must be an accelerant..in place...something to initiate the events. No evidence of any of this.

Originally posted by 4hero
You're making assumptions that they used det cord, and that det cord survived. You could be wrong on both accounts, especially as the black boxes never made it, supposedly.

You do realize that the more fringe details and hypothetical miracle technology you attempt to introduce into these conspiracy claims of yours, the further and further away you get from actual controlled demolitions, right? Gov't ninjas sneaking into a building and planting a bomb in any available trash can isn't controlled demolitions. It's simply a bomb.

It pretends nothing, it states clearly the facts that they got shot, as quickly as possible.

Huh? Who got shot? I assure the the huge majority of people who worked on the ground zero site are very much alive..particularly Joel Meyerowitz, the guy who's publishing all these photos of the site.

You didnt address the fact that they broke normal guidlines during the clean up procedure. But then you seem to avoid all the important questions! Call yourself a debunker?!

What do you mean "they broke normal guidelines"? What the heck was normal guidelines for two giant towers collapsing and destroying five square blocks of NYC? You're making that up.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by 4hero

 

It is not precedent that the black boxes were not found. It has happened before.

Now, to destroy a building, even if you were using 20 year in the future tech they are sure to have their hands on, there has to be something to receive the signal, possibly bounce the signal( we know that the fireman had issue so the remote det to me is a moot point now) and then something to continue the reaction. No trace elements? Lets be honest and just agree that this cannot be possible without something bieng found. To this very day, bones and personal items are found. Is the piece out there? Makes for a nice story.

Then, there must be an accelerant..in place...something to initiate the events. No evidence of any of this.

I don't remember saying it was a precedent that black boxes were not found, but in reality, they should have been found because they are built to take a fair beating! I was making the comparison with the 'hijacker's' passport, how on earth could that be ok but the black box not be ok? Do you have a viable explanation as to how this could be possible?

Technically the firemen should not have bhad radio issues, and some were working, and some people had issues. I'm sure in this day and age, with the technology we dont even know about they would have been able to find a way. It's not hard when you have military satellites up in space.

An accelerant was in place, becuase thermite was found in dust particles, maybe you were not aware of this?

Well only the supposed remains of 300 people were found, and when the government are in charge of theior own clean up they can hide whatever they want! C'mon man, think outside the box, stop being lazy, do some proper research.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by 4hero
You're making assumptions that they used det cord, and that det cord survived. You could be wrong on both accounts, especially as the black boxes never made it, supposedly.

You do realize that the more fringe details and hypothetical miracle technology you attempt to introduce into these conspiracy claims of yours, the further and further away you get from actual controlled demolitions, right? Gov't ninjas sneaking into a building and planting a bomb in any available trash can isn't controlled demolitions. It's simply a bomb.

It pretends nothing, it states clearly the facts that they got shot, as quickly as possible.

Huh? Who got shot? I assure the the huge majority of people who worked on the ground zero site are very much alive..particularly Joel Meyerowitz, the guy who's publishing all these photos of the site.

You didnt address the fact that they broke normal guidlines during the clean up procedure. But then you seem to avoid all the important questions! Call yourself a debunker?!

What do you mean "they broke normal guidelines"? What the heck was normal guidelines for two giant towers collapsing and destroying five square blocks of NYC? You're making that up.

Where did I mention 'miracle' technology? You are fantasising as normal Dave! You make stuff up as you go along, and imagine that people say stuff, when they clearly don't. As you can see, my original comment is in this reply, where is the claim of miracle technology? That came from you, and you only.

Of course they would be using the latest tech, as most military operations do.

When I say got shot, I mean get rid of, it an English term!

When I say they broke guidlines they did not adhere to the correct procedure during the clean up, I am assuming there is a big hole in your own 9/11 research. Just because it was a unique event to some degree, it doesn't mean they are permitted to break the specified recovery & clean up guidelines. I think you need to go off and do a wee bit more research on what happened afterwards, all the people involved in the clean up, the many different occurances. That's your homework for today, then when you have a bit more knowledge, we can discuss this further....

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

maybe because the admin & some mods are OS'ers?

They are if they actually stick to the forum motto of deny ignorance.

Deny bullshi**ers more like! You're full of it fluffy, either that or you're very gullible! Which one is it?

reply to post by 4hero


You like to give orders, don't you? Like telling people to do their homework,etc....your reference to dust and other non-nonsensical and non-applicable subjects to 9/11 are noted and filed.

What caused the thermite to burn or do you not understand what I am asking, by your statement, i would say not.

If thermite was used to take down two 100 story buildings something would be left...like the passport. Also, look up other air crashes and it is not uncommon for many things to survive intact. Unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident and not just what fits your story. That is what research is for.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Every video of the collapse (that is, every video that Richard Gage doesn't fool with to make it look the way he wants it to look) shows the penthouse collapsed six seconds before the north side of the building did. NIST theorizes this is when the south side folded in on itself and collapsed. If this is correct then there isn't anything mysterious or even sinister about the north wall collapsing after everything holding it up to that point was gone.

And that is your opinion based on NIST theories. Not based on the firefighters testimony.

Are you seriously suggesting the firemen needed to grab a calculator right in the middle of the 9/11 attack to calculate out exactly how much of the building was going to collapse for the benefit of you "inside job" conspiracy theorists? You're grasping at straws in desperation here to avoid admitting you're wrong and we both know it.

I'm not suggesting anything at all. I'm saying that you need to stop making things up about what the firemen said on 9/11.

Since the drills on 9/11 were to practice intercepting incoming bombers from abroad rather than intercepting hijacked passenger craft, I'm going to say no, they didn't tell him about any drills to intercept hijacked passenger craft. I'm sure they didn't tell him about any plan to invade the moon for the same reason.

Again you are playing dumb. You know that I was not talking about the drills on 9/11, I was talking about the drills prior to 9/11 where one of the scenarios was that a plane was crashed into the pentagon. And once again you didn't make an excuse for Condoleezza Rice. Because you know that she stated that nobody could even imagine that jets would be used as weapons. And you also know that it isn't true, don't you?

I answered your question about Barbara Olson. Now answer my question about Renee May.

What's the question ?

From what I've been told "al-qaida" simply means "base", and refers to a camp Bin Laden's bunch occupied during the war against the Russians and the name for the group simply stuck. As for the other, you're going to need to back that claim up with a link, my friend- where has it ever been shown we're "supporting Al -Qaida in Libya or is it Syria"?

Telegraph.com.uk

examiner.com

Originally posted by 4hero
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

So Dave, you're another person that will not accept, and cannot complete the 1 Million Euro challenge!!

I thought you had debunked everything?!

I'll tell you what. I'll give you a million euros if you can provide one solid piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

The premise of this thread is nonsense. There's nothing out there to debunk. As shown by the fact that the game ended years ago and the Truth Movement decidedly didn't win it.

reply to post by maxella1


Anyone should take NIST's conclusions, and not theory as you state, and put it into practice...oh, that's right they did. When they rebuild WTC7. Sorry, they did not consult the entire fire department but when it came to designing the stairwells/safety/exists there were consultants who were firefighters used.

NIST creates the standards and they were updated after the WTC investigation and based off recommendations by numerous parties. It is in the NIST report and it's updates.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

Anyone should take NIST's conclusions, and not theory as you state, and put it into practice...oh, that's right they did. When they rebuild WTC7. Sorry, they did not consult the entire fire department but when it came to designing the stairwells/safety/exists there were consultants who were firefighters used.

NIST creates the standards and they were updated after the WTC investigation and based off recommendations by numerous parties. It is in the NIST report and it's updates.

edit on 22-5-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

But none of those conclusion have anything to do with the collapse of the buildings. They are safety measures for helping fight fires and help people escape.

They didn't scrap the tube design of the towers, it is still the most used design for 'skyscrapers'.

The NIST report is a hypothesis because the major point of how they "concluded" the towers collapsed was the trusses sagging and pulling in the columns, which they have not demonstrated is possible. For it to be a theory it has to be testable in a lab. Their "conclusions" are based on a hypothesis.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ

Originally posted by 4hero

Deny bullshi**ers more like! You're full of it fluffy, either that or you're very gullible! Which one is it?

I'm full of knowledge and wisdom and self awareness and life experience..

And that tells me that 9/11 was not an inside job.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I'll tell you what. I'll give you a million euros if you can provide one solid piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Where are you going to get a million euros?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

Anyone should take NIST's conclusions, and not theory as you state, and put it into practice...oh, that's right they did. When they rebuild WTC7. Sorry, they did not consult the entire fire department but when it came to designing the stairwells/safety/exists there were consultants who were firefighters used.

NIST creates the standards and they were updated after the WTC investigation and based off recommendations by numerous parties. It is in the NIST report and it's updates.

edit on 22-5-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

GoodolDave is the one who said that NIST theorized their report. Take it up with him.

Every video of the collapse (that is, every video that Richard Gage doesn't fool with to make it look the way he wants it to look) shows the penthouse collapsed six seconds before the north side of the building did. NIST theorizes this is when the south side folded in on itself and collapsed. If this is correct then there isn't anything mysterious or even sinister about the north wall collapsing after everything holding it up to that point was gone.

I just want you people to stop making up what firefighters said .

reply to post by esdad71

If thermite was used to take down two 100 story buildings something would be left...like the passport. Also, look up other air crashes and it is not uncommon for many things to survive intact. Unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident and not just what fits your story. That is what research is for.

I'm wondering if they found anybody else's passports at ground zero.
How did they know that it belonged to one of the hijackers so fast? Im not saying that it's impossible, just very extraordinary in my personal opinion.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

This goes back to 93 and they should have had something that worked then, it is lobbyists, unions and contracts that gave those men and women on 9/11 #ty equipment, not just Rudy on 9/11. NYC should have done in 93 what they did after 9/11 with a better task force and making sure everyone could communicate. It didn't. Why, because this guy hates this guy and this guy hates this guy and before you know it the human element is gone.

The US was caught with its pants down on 9/11 and we only have ourselves to blame. Once you start to look at it like that and not "20 camel jockeys with pez dispensers take down airplanes" it takes on a different perspective. We knew 9/11 was coming, just not when. T

IAFF Letter Regarding Rudy Giuliani "What Giuliani showed following 9/11 is a disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen and those brothers still searching for them. He valued the money and gold and wanted the [World Trade Center] site cleared before he left office at the end of 2001 more than he valued the lives and memories of those lost." -- IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger

Apparently some of the firefighters feel like Giuliani valued the money and gold more than the lives and memories of people who died.

I'm curious if you agree or disagree with that ?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

Deny bullshi**ers more like! You're full of it fluffy, either that or you're very gullible! Which one is it?

I'm full of knowledge and wisdom and self awareness and life experience..

And that tells me that 9/11 was not an inside job.

lol, just by that statement you confirm what 4hero said fluffy.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by 4hero

 

You like to give orders, don't you? Like telling people to do their homework,etc....your reference to dust and other non-nonsensical and non-applicable subjects to 9/11 are noted and filed.

What caused the thermite to burn or do you not understand what I am asking, by your statement, i would say not.

If thermite was used to take down two 100 story buildings something would be left...like the passport. Also, look up other air crashes and it is not uncommon for many things to survive intact. Unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident and not just what fits your story. That is what research is for.

Well, if I think you need to do some homework because you are lacking serious knowledge on the subject you claim to know about, then that is up to me. It was more of a figure of speech, not an order. You are your own person.

"If thermite was used to take down two 100 story buildings something would be left...like the passport"
WTF are you on about? Barely anything was left, thermite or no thermite! The passport was not 'found' amongst the rubble! It was supposedly ejected out onto the street during the initial impact! Hence how laughable that claim is! Thermite needs to be heated to ignition temperature, and there was heat on the level of the impact, heat from explosions (bombs), and I'm sure if they could remotely detonate bombs, they can remotely ignite thermite. This is why the metal was still very hot for a good while afterwards, it produces it's own source of oxygen, and is difficult to cool with water, hence why thermite is used for underwater welding!

Yes, things do survive intact in other crashes, but we're not talking about other crashes, because they may have very different circumstances, we are talking about 9/11, where a 'plane' apparently flew into a building and blew up on impact, and a passport supposedly made it out of the explosion, with not even 1 mark on it! How absurd!

"Unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident and not just what fits your story"
WOW! What a massive contradiction, you say that other items have survived other plane crashes, then you say unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident!

You cannot have it both ways, make your mind up! This statement/contradiction just highlights your incompetence, and you are yet another OS hugger that cannot be taken seriously! One by one we chalk you off as incompetent, and just not worth debating with because you make everything up as you go along!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by scully222
Read the whole post again slowly. The point I was making (and you obviously missed) was that without the baggage of the Official Story most people would agree these buildings were brought down with explosives. I am talking about the 3 collapses themselves, no other "facts" involved. Any person watching these collapses on video would assume explosives. Tell these same people that admitting explosives were in these buildings would implicate their government in a horrible crime and suddenly the explosives become "impossible". People just refuse to even consider the fact that their government could do such a thing. They will believe any story to make it not true. My whole point concerns perception. Someones perception of the exact same event can vary so drastically based on preconceived notions and beliefs. It really amazes me that people can lose the use of their critical thinking skills so easily. Anyway, your post is way off base and a little offensive. Try to tone it down with the name calling and start with presenting some of these facts you claim to possess. How's that sound?

I think you might be wrong there. The events were fairly straightforward to every person that day.

Plane+Tower = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse.

In other words, most people think that the planes brought down the towers. If you bring up WTC 7, sometimes people get confused for a while, because conspiracy folk never tell the whole story. I fell for the "must be a controlled demolition" for almost a whole week. Then, I did more research on it and learned I was wrong. The penthouse collapse, the pictures of damage and fire I've seen, and the testimony of firefighters who were there. It all adds up to the conclusion that explosives were not necessary.

Plus, the lack of sound that these explosives made tips me off to there not being any. Every single demolition video has explosions just before the collapse. 9/11 had dozens of cameras pointed at every building before they collapsed. No explosive sounds occurred before they collapsed. None. No one ever explains this to me. The answer might as well be "government magic."

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~ Arthur C. Clarke





Thus the events of 9/11 could be seen as an act of violence in the style of guerrilla warfare (and an application of the military doctrine: shock & awe: “...in Rapid Dominance, the principal mechanism for affecting the adversary’s will is through the imposition of a regime of Shock and Awe sufficient to achieve the aims of policy.”) to create the conditions required for the revolution, meaning it was coup d’état, change by force, a stroke of state in the classic sense to install a small group of people into power and grant them control over the nation’s institutions. The act of violence was the launch of the perpetual warfare state; a crumbling republic has become a new empire.


“We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the
murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing
human life to serve their radical visions—by abandoning
every value except the will to power—they follow
in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.
And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends:
in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

Please, do not let the truth of 9/11 become a discarded lie.

reply to post by 4hero



What did I make up....where is the evidence of explosives? Simple question.

reply to post by maxella1


There were 4 passports recovered in total. Two at the 93 site, one in baggage that never made it and the other in NYC. What made the passport unique is it was blocks away.